Jerry's Calculation of Entropy in Genome

Some comments1) Jerry is wrong about the biology. The figure of 1.6 is NOT directly related to the figure of 41,471. The first is the estimated number of deleterious mutations per generation. The second is the number of nucleotides examined in the study. Jerry's use of the figures has no basis in the study.2) Jerry is wrong about the maths. He certainly DIDN'T calculate
(41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)!How do I know ? Because the factorial operation (denoted by '!') is only defined for integers. The calculation is nonsense, since the denominator for the ratio is undefined.3) Jerry is wrong about configurational entropy. Jerry's entropy argument works in exactly the same way for ANY binary classification of genes or mutations, not just "detrimental"/"not detrimental". If you chose to look at beneficial rather than detrimental mutations you would find that each beneficial mutation increased the entropy. This form of entropy depends very much how the problem is framed. And it is not valid to assume that the entropy will tend towards the maximum for every possible measure because different measures give different results.There are other serious problems, but I think that those will do for now.

Shaded quotes are from my previous post.

quote:

---

The figure of 1.6 is NOT directly related to the figure of 41,471. The first is the estimated number of deleterious mutations per generation. The second is the number of nucleotides examined in the study. Jerry's use of the figures has no basis in the study.

​

Ok, I just went with nucleotides rather than the triplex. Had you rather I divide the nucleotides into codons and calculate it that way? Doesn't matter to me as you STILL are going to see rising entropy.

---

Your reply is just confused. I made no reference to the genetic code. I simply pointed out that the "1.6" applied to the ENTIRE GENOME not the smaller figure of 41,471 nucleotides referred to in the study.

quote:

---

Because the factorial operation (denoted by '!') is only defined for integers.

​

I would teach it this way too if I were instructing high schoolers but it ISN'T true and especially so when we get into higher math. I was simply showing whether entropy was positive or negative. When absolute accuracy is necessary, this is not a problem either as there are many excellent programs out there which will accurately calculate fractions of integers using the natural log of a continuous probability distribution. In fact, if I'm not mistaken (couldn't tell with a brief Google) this is what the Windows calculator does.

---

It IS true that the factorial operation '!' is only defined for positive integers. And if you think about it 0.6 of a point mutation makes no sense whatsoever. You could have just used 1.

quote:

---

If you chose to look at beneficial rather than detrimental mutations you would find that each beneficial mutation increased the entropy.

You can't show me a half dozen beneficial mutations. Much less enough accumulating to offset the kind of dramatic accumulations of deleterious ones we see in the human genome. Not a factor to consider at all.

---

Which shows how useless your argument is. My variation of your argument relies only on a simple definitional change - not affecting the validity or changing the premises. And you completely reject it and start talking about evidence instead. So now we know that even you don't consider your argument valid.